Splunk — Case Study

I Had No Authority to Mandate Change

Building a design system by earning adoption, not enforcing it.

Design SystemData VisualizationEnterpriseSplunk

7

Teams adopted

60%

Faster design productivity

~40%

Fewer QA cycles

Context

I couldn't tell anyone what to do.

Splunk's products were built by separate teams — Security, Observability, Enterprise. Each had their own engineers, roadmaps, and priorities.

Charts looked different across products. Not because anyone was wrong — because no one was aligned.

I had no authority to mandate change.

Problem

Different products, different visual languages.

Teams had their own priorities. Their own deadlines. I couldn't ask them to stop and rebuild.

If I wanted consistency, I had to earn it — one team at a time.

Same chart types showing different colors, layouts, and styles across teams
Same chart types, different colors, layouts, and styles — built separately by each team.

Customers moving between Security and Observability felt like they were using two different products. Trust eroded. Support tickets piled up. “Why does this chart look different here?”

Share, don't force. Consult, don't control.

Approach

1–2 years of influence, not mandates.

Timeline showing the 1-2 year adoption process
A multi-year journey of earning trust, one team at a time.

Over 1–2 years, I:

  • Explored use cases across teams — why does Security need this? Why does Observability need that?
  • Shared findings proactively — not waiting to be asked
  • Consulted with teams when they were ready to adopt
  • Helped products transition to shared standards — on their timeline, not mine

System

16+ components. One flexible system.

One visual language. Sixteen chart types. Everything belongs together.

Overview of sixteen unified visualization components
One visual language. Sixteen chart types. Everything belongs together.
  • Consistent sizing (small / medium / large)
  • Shared color tokens
  • Flexible variants for different use cases
  • Documented so anyone could use it

Example

Single Value — one component, many needs.

This was the most-used component — and the most inconsistent. Getting this right proved the system could flex.

Single Value component showing flexible variants — numbers and sparklines
Security wanted just the number. Observability needed sparklines. The system supports both.

Impact

Adoption happened — because it was worth adopting.

7 teams

Adopted within 6 months

60%

Faster design productivity

~40%

Fewer QA cycles

New products defaulted to the system. Fewer debates about colors. Products finally felt like one platform.

You can't mandate trust. You have to earn it.

Reflection

What I learned

Design systems succeed when teams see value — not when they're told to comply. My job wasn't to enforce standards. It was to make standards worth following.